Looks like another GISS miss, more than a few people are getting fed up with Jim Hansen and Gavin Schmidt and their climate shenanigans. Some very prominent NASA voices speak out in a scathing letter to current NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr.. When Chris Kraft, the man who presided over NASA’s finest hour, and the engineering miracle of saving Apollo 13 speaks, people listen. UPDATE: I’ve added a poll at the end of this story.
See also: The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming
Former NASA scientists, astronauts admonish agency on climate change position
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence
HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.
49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.
“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”
Select excerpts from the letter:
- “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
- “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
- “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
===============================================================
hat tip to to Bob Ferguson, SPPI
UPDATE: I’ve added this poll:
This is great news. I wish only that some more active members in the NASA community will follow suit and pile on. I know a lot of them agree with the general content of this letter.
Monty-
you need to catch up in your reading. Begin with the 40 or so eminent scientists profiled in environmentalist Lawrence Solomon’s book “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud.”
PS- “A lot of them” is in reference to NASA folks at JSC
From where I sit, it appears to me that in space exploration people’s safety and missions can at times depend on the skill and judgement of a single individual. NASA cannot afford to keep just one individual with such impaired scientific judgement. After so many years, how many others have they let in and allowed them to promote one another. Hansen makes me look at NASA’s occasional “accidents” in a whole new light. If they do not get rid of people like this they have no future.
Hansen is trading on the NASA name, one the signers created. In an academic setting – he’d be little more than a garden-variety nutcase. But at NASA he is automatically accorded a reputation and prominance without having to demonstrate on his own.
They say that Hansen makes these pronouncements on his own dime (declared or not) – but show me an article or press clipping where he ISN’T described as Jim Hansen of NASA. A huge conflict of interest.
He ought to be fired for cause. NASA mgmt is negligent in its duties. If it goes to court, so be it.
My faith in America as the final bastion of liberty, truth and reason has not yet died.
Perfect timing from the guys with the “right stuff” from NASA.
Hansen has just finished getting his “medal” in Edinburgh.
Now he knows where to stick it.
Michael J. Bentley:
A couple of additional comments: NASA management knew a pure oxygen atmosphere was dangerous. Too much time and money to fix. Until after.
Apollo 13 resulted from bad communication: The pad complex changed voltage and the supplier for the O2 tank heater didn’t get the info, or ignored it. So a switch failed. The NASA science & engineering staff figured out how to bring ’em back alive. That confirmed my decision to go into engineering. (was already doing that, felt much better about it.)
Challenger and Columbia were indeed bad management. They had partial o-ring failures and ignored them. The non-CFC foam on the main tank had problems, they ignored them. But no managers got the boot in either case.
One more failure, Hubble. Two primary mirrors were built, one by Kodak, one by the “other guys.” Kodak provided test data, even though not in the contract. The other guys did not. But, they were in a state with a Powerfun Senator, so management decided to use the other guys mirror. It only cost a couple billion to fix.
I rather doubt much will change because of this letter. Maybe a tiny chink in the armor.
This demands a response from NASA if they can think of one without looking irrational.
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
■“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
■“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
■“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
Nothing posted at Real Climate yet. The silence will be deafening.
This letter is just another appeal to authority. There is nothing new in what is written but it is suppose to hold sway because of those writing it.
REPLY: But at least, unlike you, they have the courage and integrity to put their name to their words. Compared by that alone, your opinion isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit – Anthony
Aren’t these the same gentlemen that understood you couldn’t land on the moon using the black body calculations. My hat is off to you. Thanks for speaking up.
From my experience in Australia, a letter of this importance should be directed towards the politicians who decide. Otherwise public servants file away to oblivion.
Mike says:
April 10, 2012 at 4:27 pm
“Walter Cunningham is with the Heartland Institute. Sorry this letter has no scientific credibility.”
Warmists… razor-sharp intellects…
MwahahaaAAAA!
I bet old James ‘Handcuffs’ Hansen is apoplectic with rage (with his silly hat on), and Gavin Schmidt will be leaping up and down with a face like a slapped arse.
I get the feeling that ‘banjo time’ for all these arch-warmingists is nigh, and it’ll soon be the moment to stock up on popcorn.
{:o)
[snip – just not interested since you failed to take my advice for a timeout in the other thread – Anthony]
sceptical says:
April 10, 2012 at 5:28 pm
“This letter is just another appeal to authority. There is nothing new in what is written but it is suppose to hold sway because of those writing it.”
What they write does not have to be new; it only has to be true. The fact that Hansen et.al. have placed model output above evidence is not new; is that a reason to stop protesting it? The fact that the versions of GISS temperature record show a rather strange behaviour under Hansen is not new, is that a reason to accept Hansen’s manipulations as gospel? Do falsities become true by getting used to them?
Blink comparator of USA GISS temperatures pre 2000 vs. latest:
http://www.real-science.com/hansens-y2k-dilemma
They may though be pissing into the wind. “He who pays the piper calls the tune” and I am afraid that the paymaster wants AGW, not science.
This is great news
I hope MSM picks it up, although I have little optimism
Obviously I’m speaking to people who have already made up their minds, but I’ve read many, many reports in which the climate models don’t accord with the observed results… because the observed results are worse. Many reports in which climatologists– you know, the ones who’ve made a career of studying climate– say that what they’re seeing is what was predicted for five, ten, or twenty years from now, but it’s happening already.
I truly hope you people are right, and climate change isn’t serious. But the evidence is against you.
If meteorologists said that there was a 90% chance of a class-4 hurricane striking your city in the next three days, would you sit there and say there was no point in doing anything until they were 100% sure it was coming within the hour?
Climate is like an ocean liner– you have to start turning a long way before you need to be turned, or you’re going to hit the berg. I don’t think our grandchildren are going to forgive us for the delay.
@Anthony, April 10, 2012 at 4:27 pm, Reply
Tans 9/11 nuttiness is a non sequitur. We don’t seriously doubt the CO2 readings because they are easily confirmed. But this letter relies for its scientific basis on two people who have long been active in the political campaign against mainstream climate science and neither are experts in climatology. I do not agree with some of Hansen’s political views and activities, but his scientific papers are very well done. He is a climate scientist.
[snip. This article is not about other WUWT commentators. Take your hate elsewhere. ~dbs, mod.]
You guys in the states have the same problem as we have in Europe. AGW is now the largest and fastest growing sector of government expenditure. It is going to take more than one letter to put an end to it.
Not forgetting that green taxation is the governmental cash cow of our age.
It is mostly politics. So long as there is no new leadership at NASA, there will be no change in the endless advocacy for specific policy positions. Different politics, different focus. Vote in November; that is the only way to change NASA GISS.